Because it is easy to determine when there is a law against, but (for reasons discussed) often less easy to reliably identify when it is legally acceptable, this article focuses upon laws against zoosexual activity and does not attempt to address where it may be legal. Only in a few confirmed cases, where it is clearly permitted, will these be stated.

Background to the legal framework

Zoosexuality

Zoosexuality is the spectrum of human-animal sexual interaction. Other than for breeding or veterinary purposes, in many countries humans are frowned upon if they interact with a non-human animal in this manner. Historically, sex with animals has been seen negatively in the West, generally either as a religious offense against God, or as a suspect or abusive act unsuited to the civilized world. Both of these are generally held societal views which persist to the present time.

A pivotal researcher in the field, Hani Miletski describes[1] how: "Throughout the literature review, it is very obvious that authors perceive sexual relations with animals in very different ways. Definitions of various behaviors and attitudes are often conflicting, leaving the reader confused. Terms such as 'sodomy,' 'zoorasty,' 'zoosexuality,' as well as 'bestiality' and 'zoophilia' are often used, each having a different meaning depending on the author." Vern Bullough, a renowned professor emeritus who reviewed her work, states:[2] "It seems clear from Miletski's summary of the existing literature that very little is actually known about bestiality and there is not anything approaching a consensus as to why animal-human sexual contacts occur... many of the existing reports and studies should be classified more as pseudo-science than serious research."

Historical and cultural context

Historically, European and western views on zoosexuality can often be traced back to religious influences and more specifically to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions under which it was viewed as an abomination and breach of God's will. During the Middle Ages this led to people being burned for zoosexual activity, viewed on a par with homosexuality under the term "sodomy", as one of the most horrific acts possible from a religious point of view. Animals suspected were also put on trial and faced being killed if found guilty (See: Animal trial).

In other cultures, it was at times accepted, or tolerated, and at other times taboo or punished, and this varied very widely.

However an examination of Hittite and Near Eastern Laws (Akkadian/Sumerian) shows the bestiality was punished in these ancient cultures as well. For instance a Hittite law reads "If anyone has sexual relations with a pig or dog, he shall die. He shall bring him to the palace gate (i.e., the royal court). The king may have them (i.e., the human and the animal) killed or he may spare them, but the human shall not approach the king. If an ox leaps on a man (in sexual excitement) the ox shall die; the man shall not die. They shall substitute one sheep for the man and put it to death. If a pig leaps on a man (in sexual excitement), it is not an offense." Additionally "If a man has sexual relations with either a horse or a mule, it is not an offense, but he shall not approach the king, nor shall he become a priest." For further information Martha Roth's 'Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor' is an essential text. Because many cultures in Africa and the Americas did not leave written records the evidence for zoosexual activity arrives to us through the observations of westerners. This can be problematic for creating an overall idea of practice vs. law in these cultures, just as observation among the practice of Bedouins in the 19th century may lead to incorrect conclusions regarding Islamic law since the former did not widely practice the later despite being considered Muslims. Thus written records are the best indication for what other cultures, such as India or China, have felt about human sexual activities with animals through the ages. Further research needs to be done in these areas but aversions to bestiality are not found only in the West, but also have been documented throughout the world, just as the widespread practice has been documented as existing side by side with laws condemning the activity.

In more recent centuries the subject was studied as a medical aberration, some form of throwback or degeneracy within medicine, and finally within the 20th century, came to be recognized as a sexual orientation in many cases.

Zoosexuality and Jewish law

The important citations for Bestiality in the Hebrew Bible can be found in the following laws: ‘Whoever lies with a Beast shall be put to death’ Exodus 22:19 ‘Do not have carnal relations with any beast and defile yourself thereby; and let no woman lend herself to a beast to mate with it; it is perversion.’ - Leviticus 18:23 ‘If a man has carnal relations with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast.’ – Leviticus 20:15 ‘If a woman approaches any beast to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death - their bloodguilt is upon them.’ – Leviticus 20:16 ‘accursed is one who lies with any animal.’ And the entire people shall say ‘amen’. – Deuteronomy 27:21

The Mishnah elaborates: Sanhedrin 7:4 “These are they that are to be stoned: he that has a connection with a beast, and the woman that suffers connection with a beast”

These important passages provide a basis for some understanding of the interpretation of Bestiality that is found later in various legal codes throughout Europe and the United States. Many of them will also appear in some form among legal codes in 17th century Europe.

Clinical and scientific context

In discussing arguments for and against zoosexual activity, the "British Journal of Sexual Medicine" commented over 30 years ago, "We are all supposed to condemn bestiality, though only rarely are sound medical or psychological factors advanced."[3]

People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues.[4] Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive.[4]Ethologists who study and understand animal behaviour and body language, have documented animal sexual advances to human beings and other species, and tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality and animal approaches to humans; their research into animal behavior, emotion and sexuality is generally supportive of some of the claims by zoophiles regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual/relational/emotional issues.

Attitudes outside science are discussed in greater length in the article on zoophilia.

Legal context

Laws on zoosexuality tend to be shaped by three main factors:

Animal welfare concerns

Personal moral views of shapers of opinion

Cultural beliefs about the act

Issues confusing the matter are that such research as is available is not widely known, and that cases which come to public light may not be representative of the whole spectrum of this behavior.

Posner (1996) states, "there is some evidence that bestiality was particularly reviled because of fear that it would produce monsters... At early common law, there was no offense of cruelty to animals... The focus of [cruelty to animals] statutes is different from that of the traditional sodomy statute; anticruelty statutes are concerned with both the treatment of the animal and with the offense to community standards, while anti-bestiality provisions embodied in the sodomy statutes are aimed only at offenses to community standards." [5]

Animal welfare bodies usually, but not always, view zoosexuality or zoophilia as a matter of animal abuse, or at the least, of concern. A notable exception is the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency, which in 2005 addressed concerns over a surge in horse-ripping incidents by reviewing the matter and concluded that although animal cruelty legislation needed updating, a ban on zoosexual activity was not justified by research.

Difficulty in assessing laws on zoosexuality

There are two main reasons why it is hard to be certain whether zoosexual acts are legal in a country or area. The terminology used in law may be vague, so it is not clear what is covered, and whilst it is usually clear if a specific law prohibits zoosexual activity, it is not always so clear (for several reasons) whether the absence of an obvious law means the opposite.

Vagueness of terms

Some countries list laws very clearly, such as the United Kingdom, which specifically prohibits penetration of a human being by the penis of an animal, and penetration of an animal by a human's penis.[6]

By contrast many countries are quite vague about the exact scope of law. Terms such as "sex with animals", "sexual contact",[7] "sodomy", "crime against nature",[8] or "bestiality"[9] are significantly lacking in legal precision, and as with many laws, what may seem very straightforward from a distance is very vague close-up in a courtroom. This also makes them indeterminate and leaves it unclear what exact activities such terms might encompass.[10]

Difficulty in establishing legality

It is difficult to state with certainty which countries beyond these accept zoosexual actions in law. This is for many reasons, the main ones of which are:

1) Assumption of cruelty

Even if zoosexuality is not explicitly prohibited, there are often many other laws which can be used to effectively prosecute cases. For example, most countries have animal cruelty laws, and a prosecutor will argue that all zoosexual activity is animal abuse.[11]

2) Creative law use

Some countries have a range of historic but vague laws on their statute books (for example sodomy laws, "crime against nature" laws, or other laws based upon the historical religious beliefs of the culture), and will prosecute under that.[12] Even when these type of laws do not exist, it is often the case that a prosecution will be found on some ground or other, however contrived.[13] Three examples:

In one case, prosecutors charged the individual with "sex with a minor".

In the case of Kenneth Pinyan, reports suggest that despite seizing and examining carefully a large number of such videos from the property, no evidence of abuse was found. Not only was there no abuse found, but the state had no law against zoosexual activity at the time. Nonetheless, as one news source comments:

"It was only after Pinyan died, when law enforcement looked for one way to punish his associates, that the legality of bestiality in Washington State became an issue ... The prosecutor's office wanted to charge [his friend] with animal abuse, but the police found no evidence of abused animals on the many videotapes they collected from his home. As there was no law against humanely [having sex with] one horse, the prosecutors could only charge [him] with trespassing."[14]

In a 2005 Florida case, media reports state: "Florida has no law prohibiting sex with animals, so [the defendant] is charged with ... disorderly conduct, specifically a 'breach of the peace by engaging in sexual activity with a dog'..." [15]

3) Non-codified cultural prohibitions

Often there are traditions or unwritten cultural beliefs, such as tribal law or custom, which although not codified as legislation, carry an equal weight to any other law. These are sometimes called customary law, and are one of the main four legal systems in the world.

4) Social taboos

Finally, whether or not legal, there are often social mores which frown strongly upon it. For example, even in Sweden, where zoophilia has been legal since 1944, Beetz comments[16] on the findings of Ullerstam:

"It has to be noted in this context, that not having laws against a behavior and acceptance of it by society are two completely different matters... no acceptance of the persons engaging in this kind of sexual activity was adopted by the population. [...] Furthermore, Ullerstam referred to alleged evidence that showed, that many remarkable men had sexual experiences with animals and had to live a life in constant fear because of that. Those men had been widely respected, but would have lost everything if their activities would have become known; all their great contributions would have been forgotten due to a 'primitive moral reaction'."

For these reasons, this article only asserts legality where it is both confirmed and openly acknowledged custom and law that zoosexuality is legal, and where in fact it is openly confirmed, acknowledged or able to be practiced.

Overview of legislation

Laws in the West are in flux at the moment. Some countries such as the UK have recently (2002) relaxed their laws, whilst others (several US states) have recently introduced new ones where none previously existed.

A key factor seems to be the motive behind the change: in the UK the motive was a complete review of all sex offences, which concluded that a life sentence was inappropriately harsh. By contrast in Arizona USA, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases" [12], and the Arizona legislator is quoted in that source as stating:

"Arizona appears to be in the minority of states that does not make sex with animals a crime. That doesn't necessarily mean we're wrong. But why shouldn't we be in line with everybody else if the rest of the nation thinks it's a problem?"

Against this, in some countries (notably the United States), courts have ruled that views on morality are not sufficient justification for law (Lawrence vs. Texas). In other cases (Muth v. Frank) have ruled adversely to a broader reading of that case.

A second major reason is the strong desire of society to outlaw and punish animal cruelty and animal abuse. Cultural and personal assumption, lack of informed knowledge, and cases of zoosadism have left society as a whole wary or hostile towards any belief that animals may engage in sex with humans on a mutual or non-abusive basis. A factor in this is that prior research, often performed only on known incarcerated violent abuser populations and mis-cited by parties with vested interests, and described by professor emeritus Vern Bullough as "more as pseudo-science than serious research"[17] and author assumption, was used for many decades as proof that zoosexual activity should be classified as a rare but profound sexual pathology.

Studies suggest that zoosadism, or wanton abuse, torture, violent rape or cruelty to animals, for example pet abuse or animal crushing, is a potentially strong indicator for abuse towards humans. Despite investigation, a similar link has not been shown with sexual activity in general or with zoophiles more specifically.

A major social factor in the proposed introduction of laws is the coming to light of specific cases to public attention; this was the case in Washington, Missouri and Arizona USA, and also behind recent attempts in 2004 to change the law in the Netherlands.[18] In such cases it often does not seem to matter whether there was abuse or not,[19] or how rare or commonly such matters arise. Rather it seems to be a case of moral panic, or "not in my back yard."

Overall much of the concern can be summarized as coming from lack of knowledge, combined with repugnance at the concept of human-animal sexuality, presented in a societal context of religious or social abhorrance, and a desire to reduce abuse.

Laws against zoosexuality

Aggrawal has discussed extensively on laws against zoosexuality.[20] It is permitted in a few countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, although ordinary animal treatment laws apply. In other countries, such as Germany and Russia, zoosexuality is legal, but zoosexual pornography is illegal (2008 in Germany).

Elsewhere in the developed world, it is a prudent assumption that it is illegal or at the least against social custom.

There are also commonly laws against forcing another person to engage in zoosexual activity, especially minors (usually considered equivalent to rape), and laws related to exposing others (either non-consensually or minors) to the sight of a sexual act. In some jurisdictions, laws against zoosexual conduct also include provisions for seizure of animals where convicted.

Sexual handling of an animal for the purposes of veterinary practice, or animal husbandry (breeding), is normally exempted where such laws exist. In public discussion for the recently passed Oregon law, however, one animal shelter's spokesperson wanted the husbandry exemption kept out, as he was concerned that someone might use these "accepted farming practices" as a legal loophole to then have (legal) sexual contact with an animal only for personal enjoyment. One of the legislators responded by asking if they were trying to outlaw an act (of sexual contact), or a state of mind. The veterinary and husbandry exemption was left out of Oregon's law in the final, enacted version.

National laws

Laws are determined at the state and territory level. Illegal in most of them (the definition of the act is derived from case law and varies for each province), except for the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay Territory which do not explicitly outlaw it.[21]

Legal. However the spreading of zoosexual pornography is not according to a court ruling in 2006 against a man who frequently had sex with dogs in a shelter he had worked for. He was acquitted from the charge of animal abuse and was only found guilty of violating public decency by spreading zoosexual pornographic material he had made at the shelter, which he did mainly via his website under the nickname Freki. The Belgian animal rights organisation Gaia, which filed the complaint, appealed unsuccessfully against the court ruling. [22]

Illegal. Section 160 [24] forbidding "bestiality". In addition 'Compelling the commission of bestiality' and 'Bestiality in presence of or by child'(under the age of 16) are also separate crimes and all of these offenses are subject to imprisonment up to 10 years.

Legal. [25] A 2006 bid by the Danish People's Party to outlaw bestiality failed after the a report by the Danish Animal Ethics Council determined that existing laws were sufficient protection against abuse. [26]

Legal. Sex with animals is not specifically outlawed (but trading pornography showing it is, cf. [28]). In West Germany, the law making it a crime (§175b StGB, which also outlawed homosexual acts) was removed in 1969. East Germany before reunification had no law against zoosexual activity; zoosexual pornography, however, was very restricted. Certain barriers are set by the Animal Protection Law (Tierschutzgesetz).

Section 377 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) makes it illegal for a person to have sexual contact with an Animal. "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." The punishment is tougher than the punishment for rape, however only penetration is considered under this section.

Illegal, under a variety of sections contained in the Crimes Act 1961. Section 143, makes "bestiality" an offence, but as in Canada, the meaning of bestiality is derived from case law. There are also associated offences of indecency with an animal (section 144) and compelling an indecent act with an animal (section 142A). It is interesting to note that in the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolishing bestiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a mental health issue. In Police v Sheary (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC) Fisher J considered that "[t]he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others." According to the recent New Zealand Book of Lists (2007, p59), however, only one offender apiece are currently serving prison sentences under Sections 142A and 144.

Legal. It was formerly illegal, but made legal in 1944 together with making homosexuality legal. A 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the Swedish government expressed strong concerns over the increase in reports of horse-ripping incidents, although noting that "the rise in documented cases did not necessarily mean that there was a de facto increase", and distinguished zoosexual activity from incidents involving physical injury (zoosadism). The Animal Welfare Agency gave as its opinion that current animal cruelty legislation needed updating as it was not sufficiently protecting animals from abuse, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban.[30]

Anal and vaginal penetration of or by an animal is illegal, and carries a sentence of up to 2 years imprisonment. Historically an unspecified range of acts were illegal, however the Sexual Offences Act 2003[32] which followed a major review of all sexual offences in UK law clarified this, removing the ambiguous activities from the scope of the law, and changing the sentence from life imprisonment (which had been criticized as over-harsh) to two years.

Possession of pornography was criminalised in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The law on pornography is broader than that of actual acts: it also covers oral sex; it applies to dead animals as well as living; images are illegal even if they are faked. Thus an image of a legal act may be illegal to possess. The first prosecutions for bestiality pornography occurred in 2009.[33]

Many U.S. state laws against "sodomy" (generally in the context of heterosexual sodomy, oral sex, anal sex and all homosexual conduct) were repealed or struck down by the courts in Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that perceived moral disapproval on its own was an insufficient justification for banning a private act.[35] On the other hand, the 2004 conviction of a man in Florida (State vs. Mitchell) demonstrated that even in states with no specific laws against zoosexual acts, animal cruelty statutes would instead be applied, and Muth v. Frank showed that some courts might be "desperate to avoid the plain consequences" of Lawrence and may make "narrow and strained" efforts to avoid seeing it as relevant to other consensual private acts beyond the realm of homosexuality.[36]

Finally, the 1999 Philip Buble case showed that when a self-confessed zoophile is assaulted and the assault is motivated by his zoophilia (i.e., hate crime), a jury can convict the assailant and a judge give a stern sentence, despite the controversial nature of the cause.

Zoosexuality is officially illegal in 30 states. Zoosexuality is a misdemeanor in the following states[37]:

3 states had laws against zoosexuality that were declared unconstitutional by state courts and subsequently removed: Arkansas, Montana and North Carolina[37]. Because of this, these are the only states where zoosexuality could be considered legal.

The remaining 17 states do not have laws specifically prohibiting zoosexuality, and in those states its legality is vague.

Pornography laws

Animal pornography is governed in the United States by the same Miller test and obscenity laws as any other form of pornography. In many countries such as Canada, Hungary and the Netherlands, such material is legal, although in some countries where zoosexual acts are legal, zoosexual pornography is not (Belgium, Germany, Russia).

Legality of any given pornographic material has three components: legality of production, legality of sale and transportation, and legality of ownership.

In general, animal pornography is legal to produce anywhere that zoosexual activity and the creation of pornography in general are both legal. Laws concerning sale, transmission and ownership vary more widely.

In the same case cited above[39], the man concerned was fined for "violating public decency legislation" as a result of distributing pornography, implying that distribution is illegal, but was not fined for ownership.

As with all pornography, considered obscene if it does not meet the standards of the Miller Test and therefore is not openly sold, mailed, distributed or imported across state boundaries or within states which prohibit it. Under U.S. law, 'distribution' could include transmission across the internet. However may be some doubt.[42]

Usually legal (unless prohibited by state law). Interstate transport or import of pornography even for personal use is technically an offence.[43]

various

Erotic art, such as animal pornography in cartoons and the like, which does not require the recording of an actual sexual incident, are not usually considered sex with animals by the law, and so their status depends upon more general laws such as legal limits upon obscenity or pornography alone, and the thin line between erotic art and pornography. The contrasting views between cultures are highlighted by the case of Omaha the Cat Dancer, a furrycomic book, which was simultaneously the subject of a 1990 raid by Toronto police for pornographic depiction of bestiality (although the case was later thrown out of court),[44][citation needed] and the subject of praise by the New Zealand Indecent Publications Tribunal which considered that it was "not indecent", for its mature depiction of relationships and sexuality.

Historical and other laws

In some countries laws existed against single males living with female animals. For example, an old Peruvian law prohibited single males from keeping a female alpaca in their residence.

Impact of laws

Impact of zoosexuality laws has been in four main areas:

A culture of fear, ignorance or witch-hunting, in which the presence of a law becomes evidence that a group are inherently deserving of a law. (A similar effect was noted in respect of the UK's Section 28 law on homosexuality when passed).

The placing of such people outside the law has led to inhibitions on zoosexuals' ability to report animal abuse (due to unwillingness to come to legal attention as a witness or otherwise), or alternatively increases zoosexuals' vulnerability to blackmail (a proportion are reported by vindictive human ex-partners and the like, or the threat used to obtain advantage).

Reduced ability to determine what, if any, support, counselling or other assistance may be appropriate, or to provide or seek the same openly. (A notable exception is in Germany where zoosexuality is legal, and a telephone based charitable crisis support service similar to Samaritans is available)

The personal impact of living with such fears - of loss of partners, or criminal charges - and the need to maintain secrecy even from loved ones (due to lack of legal protection), is a stressor to zoosexuals and their relationships.

Even perfectly healthy animals in non-abusive relationships can be at higher risk of certain diseases (and lower risk of others) because they are kept unneutered for sexual purposes. Owners may visit a vet less frequently than they would otherwise, fearing awkward question, or discovery of their secret (leading to criminal prosecution to themselves and the death of their pet) which could theoretically jeopardize the health of their animal. To obtain an intact animal a zoophile may unwillingly and/or unwittingly lend support to abusive animal practices like puppy mills.

Connected with this, fear of consequences is reported to prevent zoosexuals from seeking clinical advice, for example, by raising zoosexuality or losses connected to it with doctors or therapists.[45] This is similar to the manner in which homosexuals' issues are under reported in countries where homosexuality is punishable.

Bioethicist Jacob Appel of New York University, an opponent of anti-bestiality laws, has stated that such law keep zoophiles "in the shadows" and prevent an accurate assessment of their numbers.[46]

Notable cases

There are many cases of zoosexuality and the law, so only the most notable are related here.

"Freddie the Dolphin" (1991, UK) - man accused of masturbating a well known tame dolphin at sea. Charged with a "lewd act". Acquitted. Expert witnesses testified male dolphins use their erections not just sexually, but socially as well, and no sexual inference could be drawn. Judge summing up said of the £30,000 trial cost, "this has been the most expensive lesson in dolphin sociology that he has ever heard of". [14](dead link)

Kenneth Pinyan (2005, USA) - man died following anal penetration by stallion. Police determined that no cruelty took place. Nonetheless, moral panic led to rapid introduction of laws in the state involved and a search for grounds to charge his companion with at least an offence of some kind.[19]

Sudan, February 2006 - man caught having sex with a neighbour's goat, is ordered by the council of elders to pay the neighbour a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) and marry the animal. [15]

Cambodia, 2005 - man caught having a "passionate embrace" in bed with dog, by wife, confessed he loved the dog more and they separated. Cambodian police commented: "As police, we could only solve the problem of his wife then wanting a divorce. We cannot solve the problem of his relationship with his dog, because under Cambodian law it is not strictly illegal... It is amazing, but this husband is not crazy. It seems he is a passionate human being who looked at a dog, and the more he looked, the more passionate he became." [16]

Wisconsin, USA, 2007 Bryan James Hathaway was convicted for having sex with a dead deer. The court case raised some interesting legal issues because the statute prohibits sex with animals, but not carcasses. The defence raised the issue that if a dead animal was an animal, at what point would it cease to be an animal. [17]

References

^ ab The finding that attitudes to alternate sexualities correlate strongly with nature of contact and beliefs, is stated in a variety of research into zoophilia and also mirrored in societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which have been more thoroughly researched over a longer time period. Thus Herek, who established the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale in psychology, states "The ATLG and its subscales are consistently correlated with other theoretically-relevant constructs. Higher scores (more negative attitudes) correlate significantly with high religiosity, lack of contact with gay men and lesbians, adherence to traditional sex-role attitudes, belief in a traditional family ideology, and high levels of dogmatism (Herek, 1987a, 1987b, 1988, 1994; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Herek & Capitanio, 1995, 1996)"[1], and that "the strongest predictor of positive attitudes toward homosexuals was that the interviewee knew a gay man or lesbian. The correlation held across each demographic subset represented in the survey--sex, education level, age--bar one: political persuasion. [Conservative men and women]"[2]

Should lying naked in contact with an animal, as many people do whose pets sleep next to them, be counted as "sexual contact"?

For people who finding the sensation of fur to be erotic, does this automatically render any contact with animals (eg scratching their heads) a felony?

What should the law make of the many pet owners and breeders who masturbate their animals, not for their own pleasure, but because they view that as the ethical, responsible way for a person who owns an animal to handle animal sexuality, and who would see it as a form of cruelty (similar to refusing to squeeze anal glands) to refuse to acknowledge the discomfort to an animal of unrelieved libido [3]? (And would the morality of the act depend on whether it is 'enjoyed' or not? If so, what about horse breeders?)

If a girl finds she gets sexually aroused by the feelings and sensuality of riding a horse bareback (as is often noted to be the case), is she enjoying "sexual contact" with an animal?

Does oral sex alone, performed by or on an animal, constitute "bestiality"? (Notably, a US court has ruled that in the case of past president Bill Clinton, he did not commit perjury exactly because it was reasonable to have a belief that "sexual relations" did not include oral sex; see Lewinsky scandal.)

Is kissing sexual? Does society agree whether allowing a dog to engage in a more than passing kiss with a human is "sexual contact" or a "crime against nature", should the human not find it repugnant?

These and other examples may serve to indicate not what should or should not be allowed, but rather, that the apparent clarity of an obvious term, is extremely unclear in practice unless very carefully defined.

^ The argument that "all sexual activity with animals is automatically abuse" was made for example, in 1) the 2004 case of State vs. Mitchell (Florida), 2) the 2004 Pony case in Utrecht, Holland (cited below), and 3) the 2006 Washington state law which asserts as its foundational premise that "animal cruelty in the first degree is committed when a person knowingly engages in sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal." SB-6417 2006

^ For example a man found to have committed a zoosexual rape of a sheep in Michigan 2006 was not charged with animal cruelty, but with crimes against nature. It is notable that a first offence of animal cruelty, which includes any "unnecessary neglect, torture, or pain", carries only up to a 93 day sentence (MI 750.50 section 2(f) and section 4), whereas a zoosexual act prosecuted as a crime against nature is capable of a 20 year sentence.

^ From alt.sex.bestiality [4]: "Sometimes prosecutors are imaginative, and will creatively apply irrelevant laws. For instance, statutory rape if the animal is less than 18 years old."

^ Washington on the back of the Kenneth Pinyan case, Missouri following the Jerry Springer Show episode 'I married a Horse', Arizona following "A spate of incidents" [6], and Holland following a case in Utrecht: "MPs were outraged at the start of March when a man caught raping a pony in Utrecht could not be punished because he had not broken any law... Veerman will now investigate the possibility of adding sex with animals to the list of acts classified as animal cruelty, news agency ANP reported." [7]

^ ab Eg Washington where the police looked for abuse but failed to find any evidence: Pinyan was the passive partner in an act of sexual penetration by a stallion videotaped by a friend. This was the only incident of its kind in the state's history, and it could be said the human, who died from internal injuries, was the victim of his own act. Police concluded despite examination of many video tapes that there was no evidence of animal abuse and that the only crime was the relatively minor one of trespass. Nonetheless, almost instantly, legislation was proposed in a form of moral panic, covering every aspect conceivable: the act, the videotaping of the act, the knowing granting of permission for the act, the observing of the act. SB-6417 2006. In a similar manner, no prosecution for cruelty was ultimately found to be viable either, or indeed brought, in the televised case of the self-confessed Missouri zoophile highlighted on 'Jerry Springer', nor in the self-confessed Philip Buble case. Cases such as these have led commentators to observe that the connection between zoosexuality and cruelty seems assumptive at best.

Criminal offence: New South Wales (Crimes Act 1900 s79, not more than 14 years imprisonment), Northern Territory (Criminal Code s138, not more than 3 years imprisonment), Queensland (Criminal Code s211: "carnal knowledge of an animal", not more than 5 years imprisonment), South Australia (Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s69, "buggery with an animal", not more than 10 years imprisonment), Tasmania (Criminal Code s122(b), not more than 21 years imprisonment), Victoria (Crimes Act 1958 s59, not more than 5 years imprisonment), Western Australia (Criminal Code s181: "carnal knowledge of an animal", not more than 7 years imprisonment).

^ From main article Muth v. Frank - "The grounds for dismissal, that Lawrence had dealt specifically with homosexual sodomy and not other consensual private sexual activity between adults, were considered "narrow and strained" by at least one newspaper, the Boston Globe[9]. As legal scholar Matthew Franck observed, the writer of the opinion, Judge Daniel Manion, must have been "desperate to avoid the plain consequences of the [Supreme] Court's recent precedents on sexual liberty." "

^ For example this description by one person of difficulty seeking support after the loss of a dog to congenital kidney disease despite being able to confide in his wife: "I thought I was O.K., and then I burst into tears in the kitchen and couldn't stop crying. I didn't have any idea how much I loved [my dog] until she was gone... My work was suffering and my relationship with my wife was suffering... After I found myself idly wondering how I'd commit suicide (just as an intellectual exercise, you understand), I realized that something had to be done.... Eventually my doctor referred me to a free counselling service.... Eventually I told him of my sexual relationship with [my dog]. I have to confess that I was expecting him to denounce me and wheel out a straight-jacket."
He continues, "But he surprised me by declaring happily that THAT was the reason I was so feeling so damned rotten. I hadn't lost a dog, I had lost a lover! And I couldn't express that pain to my friends because of the social taboo. Even my wife couldn't fully comprehend the extent of the loss I had suffered. So I was being forced to carry the pain of my loss all alone. That man saved my sanity, and possibly my life." [11]